Skip to main content

Howard Griswold s Truth onThe Executor Letter

Audio Preview

audio
Howard Griswold s Truth onThe Executor Letter

by Truth



[Howard] Ninety-nine percent of the crap that's out there on the internet is wrong, at least the patriot stuff, is wrong unfortunately. And itâs only wrong because the people donât research the law. Ok, now that I got that part out of the way more bull crap information but it came from a guy who had come up with a fantastic idea and I got to give him credit. And I think somebody said his name is David Clarence and this idea of firing the executor/administrator is half right but heâs on the right track, heâs going in the right direction. I wish somebody would have him get in touch with me. We got some research here that will help whatâs doing that will put this together and really finalize it for him. I was on this track but not the idea of removing the trusteeâI wasnât going that far. I donât think David Clarence understands that the administrator/executor/guardian/ward, all those names or terms that are used to identify somebody who is controlling your property for you is actually the name of a person that is a trustee. There is a form that has to be followed in order to be recognized for removal of the trustee and it doesnât match what heâs doing. What heâs doing is upsetting the apple cart right now. It looks like itâs doing good. At least thereâs some reportsâI donât know how true the reports areâbut thereâs some reports that itâs done very well in quite a few different situations. And it will for a while until they get their heads together on the evil side and decide that, âhey, wait a minute, he didnât follow the rules. Being that he didnât follow the rules and he didnât use the procedures that we use and he didnât use the forms that we use we donât have to recognize what heâs doing,â and then itâll stop. Iâd like to show him what I have found in the forms, somewhere around here, and I canât seem to dig it out yet. In some pile of information Iâve got the forms for the removal of the trustee. We have to remove the government at the federal level, the state level, and the political subdivisions of the states, city, county, town governments as trustees. And the retaliation by us in this so-far cold warâweâre not really shooting at one another yet so itâs still a cold war. And hopefully we can stop it from coming to a shootout, I donât think we can, but I hope we can. It can be done by a retaliation by the people independently and individually. Now, this is only going to help each individual thatâs in some kind of a situation that wants to get out of it. The call that you got about the guy thatâs in jailâwe could probably terminate the jail as well as the state and the attorneys and everybody involved in the state that put him in jail as trustees and once we did theyâd have to let him out of the jail. This would destroy their ability to continue controlling your property. Now, your property starts with your body. They have control over your body because it was registered with a birth certificate and this is where the security agreement that Dave talks about so much comes into play. You must have a secured interest in your property starting with your body, your labor, your land, your automobile and all other chattels like your puppy dogs and guns and everything else should be listedânot too many if any guns, though. You got to be careful listing guns then youâre telling them what kinds of guns you gotâitâs really better to leave them off. But every other thing that they have control over by registration was created, believe or not, by what the law book says is a constructive trust.

The law of constructive trusts says, whenever you give property to another person to hold by operation of law it creates a constructive trust. The person holding the property then is a trustee. You are the settler of the trust, the creator of it. And as the settler or creator youâre also the beneficiary of that trust. And the law of trusts puts certain rules and regulations on the conduct of a trustee. And whenever that trustee doesnât follow those rules and regulations and does something that is adverse to the benefit of the beneficiary then he has breached the trust. Now, what I was thinking about doing was putting together lawsuits for breach of the trust. Well, like I said earlier about the balls that the American people have, they ainât got much if they got any. The donât feel competent to go into these courts and file lawsuits and follow them through. And, really, I canât blame you much. Itâs very complicated. Thereâs a lot of study involved in the procedures and the rules and everything else. Itâs extremely hard to do that and be successful. A few people couldâmost couldnât. So, that this fellow, David Clarence, has come up with is in the right direction. This is very simple. You donât have to go to court. As a matter of fact in the last couple of days I was studying in Scott on Trusts that you can terminate the trustee for good cause. Now, the good cause has to be a breach of the trust so rather than make a lawsuit for breach of the trust there are already cases established that state that once the trust is breached that it can be terminated and the trustee can be removed. Well, if you remove them they lose all power. And I think what David Clarence has been doing has already proven that. As a matter of fact, I think Ron is on the phone tonight and Ron used it in the court verbally and he walked out of the court free. I mean, heâs done great and this can be taken a lot further if we just know the rest of these details that Iâve been looking up on constructive trusts. The other thing is that the government is a public trust. It has always been identified in history as a public trust. As a matter of fact, let me give you a little of information that Iâve picked up here on something that can be done in addition to terminating them as a trust and terminating or removing them as a trustee and that is that you can bring an action if you got the balls to do this against any one of these corporations. The police department is incorporated. If theyâre a bunch of hoodlums and theyâre violating the public trust bring an action to revoke their corporate charter. If the lawyers and their BAR association which is a corporateâevery one of them is incorporated with either an LLC or an LLP or a corporation. Well, they all are basically the same thingâtheyâre fictions. Some of them do it under trusts, but very rarely do they do it under a trust. But even a trust is a fiction. The government is a fiction. It is in a trust position as a fictional trust organization with duties to protect us as beneficiaries. And if you read the preamble to the Constitution it lays out their duties as trustees to protect us. Very clearly theyâre supposed to create armies to defend us against any invasion. Theyâre supposed to maintain the welfare, by God. Iâm sure people donât know what that word means. They think itâs a window you go to once a month on Friday night and pick up your check called welfare checks. Maintaining the welfare meant to maintain the commerce in such a fashion that the welfare of the individual was highly protected. Thatâs what they meant by that and that is not what government is doing. Government has gotten away from its original intent. I have never been anti-government and Iâm still not anti-governmentâIâm just anti-corruption. And there were ways. As a matter of fact, listen to this. In fact, the American Revolution was an attempt to overthrow the type of corporate power broking that we see every day in contemporary America. Virginia was an English corporation. North Carolina was created by an English corporation. Maryland was chartered the same way, exactly the same manner on each one of them. The East India Company was the corporation that plundered much of the Western Hemisphere in its search for valuable resources and goods and it was an English corporation. As Grossman succinctly states, the colonists did not make a revolution over a tax on tea as the history tells us. They fought for many reasons but chiefly to create a nation where citizens were the government and ruled the corporations. Thatâs the opposite today, isnât it? So even as Americans were routing the kingâs armies they vowed to put corporations under democratic command. {See, Gangs of America, by Ted Nace} Well, it looks like what happened is the corporations have taken over democracy instead of democracy controlling the corporations like was originally intended. {Thanks a lot, Thomas Scott, who bribed the Pennsylvania legislature and removed the safeguards on corporations and then ran the war for his henchman, Abraham Lincoln and then he bought up the Southern railroads after the war.} This article goes on to say that the attorney general frequently exercised his power to revoke the charters of corporations. In fact, up until 1940 in many states corporate charter revocation actions were commonplace. Not just small corporations were subject to revocations. The sugar trust, a corporation combined to control sugar prices, was dissolved in 1890. The Standard Oil Corporation was subject to charter revocation suit in the State of Washington in 1934. Throughout the 1800s and early 20th century the quo warranto power remained a powerful tool through which dissolving a corporation that had not obeyed the law or had violated the public trust was used to dispose of these corporations. Now, it is not necessary to create a trust of your own. Itâs not a bad idea but itâs not necessary because your trustâand I said this and, boy, did I make a lot of people angry especially with that group up in Cleveland at that time where I brought this all up because they were selling trusts and this got in their way. But Iâm telling you that creating trusts for people does not overpower the public trust and it does not overpower the constructive trust that was created by you registering your property and giving it to the state or any other government agency to hold for you such as birth certificate registrations, land deed registrations, social security registrations, puppy dog registrations and gun registrations and business license registrations for private little business activities. None of this stuff is required by law and it canât be required by law. It is all a breach of the public trust to make you record and register these different things with government because government has no right to take private property for public use without just compensation. So they are breaching the public trust in every one of these types of conduct that they are executing by requiring the American people to give their property over by registration to the government. That is a breach of the trust. That is sufficient evidence to remove them as the trustee and terminate the trust. Enough people doing this will shut it down. They donât have to go revoke the charter of these corporations if enough people do it. But if we attack it from both directions and Iâve got the forms here and the complete explanation if anybodyâs interested on how to generate a suit to revoke the charter of a corporation whether it be the county government corporation, the police department corporation, the fire department corporationâbecause theyâre a bunch of thugs, too todayâthey help the damned police. Iâm not sure if itâs a good idea to get rid of the fire department but you might go after them. The health department corporation, the social service corporation, any one of these things can be terminated and done away with because every one of them is violating the public policy. And the basic concept of the public policy comes back to what weâve talked about for yearsâprivate propertyâand their interference in the use and enjoyment of your private property. We can attack this from both of those directions and I definitelyâI donât know who knows David Clarenceâbut get in touch with him and ask him if heâll get in touch with me. Iâd love to get with him and show him some of what Iâve got here from our studies and help him to make this a little bit stronger or at least a lot stronger than what heâs already doing. Heâs got a couple of misconstrued ideas. He thinks that itâs an estate and only an estate and he doesnât understand that an estate has to be in somebody hands and that thing has to be something, either fictional or real. He doesnât seem to understand that the capital letter spelling of the name is not just an estate, but itâs a corporation. Delaware, Title 8, corporations. The general corporation law, for instanceâlisten to this very closely. The certificate of incorporation shall set forth the name of the corporation which shall contain one of the words, association, company, corporation, club, foundation, fund, incorporated, institute, society, union, syndicate or limited or abbreviations thereof with or without punctuations because the law doesnât care about punctuations. So that throws all this punctuation crap the patriot communities throwing around right out the window, doesnât it? They donât care about punctuations or words or abbreviations thereof of like import of foreign countries or jurisdictions provided that they are written in Roman characters or letters. Now, if you go on the internet and Google Roman alphabet you will find a fantastic little dossier on Roman alphabet and it tells you that Roman characters or letters are always capital letters. So the capital letter spelling of your name imports the concept of a corporation and there has to be something that has that property and itâs this fiction corporation in all capital letters spelled in a name thatâs similar to yours because the letters are the same theyâre just written the same way. Theyâre written in all capital letters to emphasize the fact that itâs a corporate fiction. That corporate fiction is not moving and doing anything because youâre not moving it so itâs dead. Youâre not dead. Theyâre not considering that youâre dead. They donât want you dead. They want this corporation fiction to stay around and you to keep making money and paying taxes and being able to go through the corporation to you to collect all the money. Itâs a real neat fraud put together by these same kind of people that the article that Dave just read was talking about. Itâs a way to destroy the wealth of the American people and theyâve done a great job of it for years because weâve not seen the truth. Weâve not understand what theyâre doing. Weâve not understood that a lawyer is a lying scheming thief, that heâs stealing your property by forcing you to register your private property when they had no right to make you register your private property. We didnât see that. Weâre beginning to learn it and itâs starting to come out and something can be done about it. Remove them as the trustee. You can terminate the trust at will if youâre the settler or the beneficiary. You donât need to go to court and ask a court to do it for you. Thatâs not necessary. Yourâ¦does it because you created it, youâre the one that can dissolve it. You got to claim your property back and you do that through the security agreement and then you control your property and thereâs no dead fiction that they can utilize to administer the estate on. David Clarence is on the right track. I mean heâs going in the right direction. He needs a little bit more information to see how this all fits together.

If you have any questions write them to Gemini Investments, PO Box 398, Delmar, Delaware 19940.


=========================Ok, this is from the book, Scott's Abridgment of the Law of Trusts, Chapter 13, Constructive Trusts; General Principles of a Constructive Trust. A constructive trust arises where a person who holds title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the grounds that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it.

He has to convey it to you, not to somebody else for his benefit, that's what that's saying.



Although a constructive trust is a remedial device sometimes available for the redress of breaches of an expressed trust it is also available in numerous and varied situations wholly unconnected with an expressed trust. A constructive trust bears the same relation to an expressed trust as a quasi-contractual obligation bears to a contract. A constructive like a quasi-contractual obligation is imposed in order to prevent unjust enrichment.



This unjust enrichment may arise out of the wrongful acquisition of the title to property as where it is acquired by fraud or duress or undue influence or where it is acquired by the wrongful disposition of another's property or where it is acquired by a person in a fiduciary relation to anotherâ¦



Now, that's where the government comes in. Government, remember from Jersey City v. Hague case the Supreme Court of New Jersey said government is always in a trust position which imposes upon them a fiduciary duty. So anytime you're dealing with government they are in a fiduciary relationship.



â¦acquired by a person with a fiduciary relation to another in violation of his duty as fiduciary. The constructive trust may arise, however, even though the acquisition of the property was not wrongful. It arises where the retention of the property would be resulting in an unjust enrichment of the person retaining it as where it is acquired through mistake or where property is transferred by a trusteeâ¦



That would be the state transferring it or the county or something in an action for property tax for instance.



â¦or other fiduciary in violation of his duty as a fiduciary to an innocent personâ¦



That's us. Really that should probably say stupid people because we're innocent people because we don't know âthat encompasses stupidityâwe don't know what they're doing and that's what makes us the innocent person



â¦who is not in the position of the purchaser for value or it also covers a person who is in a position of having been the purchaser for value. In many cases where a constructive is enforced the result is to restore the status quo.



In other words, put you back where you belong, your original position.



If the defendant were permitted to retain the property he would be unjustly enriched and to the same extent the plaintiff would be unjustly deprived of the property.



That really explains in better words than I used exactly how you lose property and the State, the governments, in some way or another are unjustly enriched. That even fits income tax, believe it or not, when they take income tax out of your private labor when you don't have an excise or privilege granted by the government to earn the money under which makes it taxable and they take tax money anyway. They are holding that money in a constructive trust for you. Now, I'm sure it's beyond most people's ability to go into court and argue something like this. You'll never get the money back even if you did. They don't have any money anymore. The United States announced that it was broke in January of 2009. It does have money in certain areas in certain parts of the Treasury but the functional part of the Treasury where they can use it to pay bills is broke and has been broke. There's a section of the Treasury that has money allocated to it by Congress to pay the workers. There's a section of the Treasury that's allocated to pay reimbursements to people who the United States has taken private property from. Those areas are not broke but they can't take that money and shift it over to the other part of the Treasury. There's really nothing there for you to get other than what's in the section on unjust enrichment that they have set up to repay you for the losses that they've caused you by taking of your property. That section is loaded with money. Anyway, it goes on to talk about unjust enrichment a little bit more. It says:



Unjust enrichment may be prevented by the imposition of an equitable lien. A court of equity may prevent the enrichment of the defendant either by compelling him to surrender to the plaintiff property held by him and thus enforcing a constructive trust or by giving the plaintiffâ¦



Now, listen to this:



â¦by giving the plaintiff a security interest in the property held by the defendant thus imposing an equitable lien.



Do you see what a security interest does? That's what our security agreement that we developed does, it creates an equitable lien against the property. It just requires that you stand up in court and enforce it. It's interesting how all this stuff is tying together with things we've already learned about in the past. Another section, here, is called the acquisition of property by a fiduciary.



A constructive trust arises where a person in a fiduciary relation acquires or retains property in violation of his duty as a fiduciary. We have considered elsewhere the principles which are applicable in the case of an expressed trust. And they say, go back to that section and quote the section number. Similar principles are applicable to other fiduciaries such as other fiduciaries which includes guardians, executors, administrators, agents, attorneys, partners, joint adventurers, directors and officers of corporations, etc. Each of these owes a duty of loyalty to the person to whom he is in a fiduciary relation and if in violation of his duty of loyalty to them he seeks to acquire or retain for himself some property interest he is chargeable as a constructive trustee for them.



What do you think of that? We've just got to impose that upon them. While Dave was talking I was glancing through Corpus Juris Secundum, the book on trusts, and I found a section in here explaining removal by beneficiaries of co-trustees without the intervention of the court.



Pleadings for removal, misconduct in management, in the execution of the trust and the powers and discretion of the court to do something about it if you want to take it to court and grounds for removal in general of the trustee.



I'm going to be looking that up and doing some studying. I just found that in the index and now I know what sections to go to and where to read to find more out about that area.



Imposing the constructive trust in the first place is already established by a whole list of court cases.



Download them and I'll be making those court cases available on people_looking_for_the_truth so that you can just download them. Believe it or not, people_looking_for_the_truth is a yahoo group and it seems to be working. That's the one that I was fussing about last week that people put too much garbage on there. I'm going to restrict that from now on. If we're going to call it people_looking_for_the_truth we've got to put the truth we got to put the truth on there not a bunch of garbage that some of these patriots are putting outâI don't want that listed on there. So I'm going to go through the 279 postings that are on there and delete a bunch of the garbage that's somebody's put on there and I'm going to restrict what can be put on there from now on. It'll go through me before it gets posted. We'll post it and you just got to send it to me or we'll send it on to some of my helpers that I've asked to look at some of these things and help me do all the reading of it. But you will find things along these lines which express what the law says, what the truth is, not a bunch of garbage.

Anyway, it's getting close to ten o'clock so I'm just going to cover one more part of this on constructive trusts.



These principles of constructive trusts are applicable where a litigee (now, that means a person going into court) that's alive or a devisee which means somebody that passed, either one.



So notice that all this stuff pertaining to estates and trusts is relative to the property that you own whether you're alive or after you've passed on. It's relative in either end of life.



So these principles are applicable where the litigee or devisee or heirs or next of kin acquires property from the decedent by fraudulent representation or by use of physical forceâthat sounds like government, doesn't itâby the surreptitious substitution of another paper for a willâthat sounds like something that government does, doesn't itâor by other fraudulent or wrongful conductâthat definitely fits government. By such conduct the decent may be induced to make a will.



Now, let me clarify something about this word, `will', right here while we're on this. I've looked this up in the past and done some research on it. The acts that you do today during your life indicate your immediate will for what's going on right now. So, the word, will, does not necessarily apply only to a written document that you leave with your intentions of what's to be done after you die. Your present conduct controls the intention of your will while you're livingâso keep that in mind. If you are induced to move something or do something such as register your private land that appears to be your will. You make a will to register the landâright? It may be prevented from revoking the will and may be induced to revoke a will.



The decedent may be induced to make a will, may be prevented from revoking a will or may be induced to revoke a will or may be prevented from making a will. In other words, any kind of interference that somebody makes who is in a fiduciary position like government agents by telling you what you ought to do or what you got to do when it's not in your best interest is a breach of their fiduciary duty. And in such cases the wrong doer will not be permitted to retain the property so acquired. The state tax collector and the recorder of deeds will not be permitted to retain the property that they've acquired by your registration if you make an action under a constructive trust putting them in a trustee position and requiring them to return the property, is what it's saying. They will not be permitted to retain the property so acquired but if he takes title to the property he will be charged as a constructive trustee. A constructive trust will be imposed in favor of the person who but for the wrong would have acquired the propertyâin other words, youâthe real owner, the purchaser, the one who paid for it, the property, the private property owner. It will be a constructive trust imposed in favor of you where a person wrongfully induces another to make a will in his favor the court with probate jurisdiction will ordinarily refuse to admit the will into probate and thus it is unnecessary to impose the constructive trust.



That's if there's a will. If there is no will then it is necessary to impose the constructive trustâno written will. If a litigee by fraud or force or other wrongful conduct prevents a testatorâthat's one making a testament, a written desire to do something whether it's while you're alive or after you're deadâeither one is considered a testatorâfrom revoking the will the litigee is chargeable as a constructive trustee for the person who would have been entitled to the property if the will had been revoked where a testator having made a will is by the fraud of his heirs or by force induced to revoke the will so that he died intestate the heir is chargeable as a constructive trustee of the property thus acquired by him for the person for whom he would have taken under the will if it had not been revoked is by fraud or force or other wrongful means prevented by his heirs from executing a will in favor of another with the result that he died intestate the heirs hold the property upon a constructive trust for the intended litigee.



Well, the government is in quite that position, aren't they, by forcing registration of all types of property, our birth registration, our land deeds, our labor through social security. That definitely puts every bit of this property that we have into this concept of a constructive trust and makes them the constructive trustee and then there are duties of a trustee. And if they violate those duties of loyalty as a trustee then they can be removed as a trustee. Government is always in a trust position so every government official is always a trustee. As a matter of fact, that case that I told you about last week that talked about the fiduciary gaining an interest in the property that imposed a constructive trust upon it. That case also talked about the fact that not only is that particular fiduciary in a constructive trust position as a fiduciary but so are all of his sub-agents, partners and associates. That's interesting how they put partners in there. It could be like a law firmâthat would be partners. Subagents would include anybody in government and that goes all the way down to the lowly little stupid job of being a police officer. A police officer is a trustee having a fiduciary duty to act with the highest level of honest and integrity and look out for you and me as the beneficiary, not the taxpayer, not the debtor, not the one he can write a traffic ticket to. The extortion that goes on in the country that we've allowed to let government to get away with because of our lack of knowledge and understanding of their position and who's where? We're on top. Remember the tenth Amendment, the last word in it is people. It says that the state legislature can overpower and abolish anything that the federal government does and if they don't do it then the people can do itâthe people have the last wordâand we don't seem to know that. There's been nothing taught of it in school. I always thought it but didn't know how you could do it. Well, I'm finding out. Finally after all these years of research that everything we've learned we spent quite a bit of time years ago looking at unjust enrichment but didn't understand how to apply it. The government is unjustly enriched by the taking of our property through registration and maintaining the interest in the property. And they have a duty to give it back to us and they have a duty to pay us anything that they profited by their investment of our property because we're the beneficiary and in the trust everything is supposed to be done for the good of the beneficiary. This is all trustâeverything they're doing. And they aren't very trustworthy and they aren't because they know we don't know. It's about time we taught them we do know. We need to start making actions for breach of trust against them and we need to improve upon David Clarence's approach or removing the executor. What he left out is that the executor is, in fact, a trustee. And he has to remove the executor/trustee or the administrator/trustee in the manner in which he starts to do it and then follow up. Now, if you read this information here on how to do that it talks about having to show a violation of his duty. It cannot be done just because you don't like them, you don't agree with them, that's not good enough. You have to show that they violated their duty as a trustee in some fashion. And the duty of a trustee varies depending upon the situation of the trust, the creation of the trust, the wording that might be in the trust if it's a written trust, the manner in which they acquired the property or acquired an interest in the property. If it establishes a constructive trust the reasons are all different. You got to learn something about the duties of a trustee before you can do the removal of the executor trustee and explain why he's being removed because of his violation of his duty. You just do it and make statements that you don't like them because they're part of the BAR Association which I think is basically what the complaint was in his executor letter that I read. He doesn't really identify the wrongful act that they did in breach of their duty as a trustee. Another thing. Another thing, as soon as I find it all, we'll put on people_looking_for_the_truth is the duties of a trustee so that you can learn for yourself what has happened in your situation that they have done that is a wrong that creates the constructive trust and imposes it upon them and then what the beneficiary can do, which is you, the cestui que trust, to remove them. Also the whole trust can be terminated. Now, basically, that's what we've done with our document that we call an Affidavit of Commercial Notice. We've told them to either pay us for the value of our property that they got the interest in through registration or return the property to us. We've basically terminated their ability to hold the property in trust. I think maybe we fell a little bit short because we need to go one step further and terminate the whole trust and remove them as a trustee. So, we're working on this. It's going to take us a little bit of time. I keep finding parts of it, pieces to use, information about it, and slowly I'm putting it together.







--






Howard Griswold Conference CallâThursday, December 16, 2010

Partial



Howard Griswold Conference calls:

218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes),

Thursday's at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.

`6' Mutes and un-mutes


comment
Reviews

There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write a review.
SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)
Cover Art Archive
by Truth
image
eye 24
favorite 0
comment 0
Community Audio
by BWA
audio
eye 27
favorite 0
comment 0
Community Audio
by lawfulrebellion.org
audio
eye 156
favorite 0
comment 0
European Libraries
texts
eye 119
favorite 0
comment 0
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=V5kDAAAAQAAJ&oe=UTF-8
Community Audio
by Geneva Community Radio
audio
eye 16
favorite 0
comment 0
Community Video
movies
eye 214
favorite 1
comment 0
European Libraries
texts
eye 89
favorite 0
comment 0
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=lt0EAAAAQAAJ&oe=UTF-8
Community Audio
by Second Baptist Church
audio
eye 28
favorite 0
comment 0
European Libraries
texts
eye 346
favorite 0
comment 0
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=9AwDAAAAQAAJ&oe=UTF-8